Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Culturally (Ir) Relevant School Leadership: Ethno-Religious Conflict and School Administration in The Philippines
Culturally (Ir) Relevant School Leadership: Ethno-Religious Conflict and School Administration in The Philippines
To cite this article: Melanie C. Brooks & Jeffrey S. Brooks (2018): Culturally (ir)relevant school
leadership: Ethno-religious conflict and school administration in the Philippines, International
Journal of Leadership in Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2018.1503819
ABSTRACT
Culturally relevant school leaders help establish and nurture
school cultures that support the academic and social success of
all students. Yet, some school leaders are not culturally responsive
and make uncritical or intentional decisions that disadvantage
certain students. This has implications for students marginalized
by the dominant culture, especially in contexts of social unrest
where culturally irrelevant leadership can reinforce existing social
and academic divisions. This research centered on school princi-
pals in Northern Mindanao, Philippines. The region has a long
history of ethno-religious conflict which has displaced
two million people and killed 160,000 people over the last
40 years. The purpose of this research was to explore how and
in what ways school principals in Northern Mindanao are culturally
(ir)relevant leaders. One research question guided this inquiry:
How and in what ways do school principals in Northern
Mindanao understand and practice culturally relevant leadership?
The research findings make explicit the importance of meaningful
principal preparation and professional development programs that
interweave culturally relevant leadership skills, reflective practice,
and inter-cultural understanding in ways that can be locally
applied.
School principals play an essential role in supporting the academic and social success of
all students—in particular students traditionally marginalized due to their race, ethni-
city, language, ability, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation or religion
(Fullan, 2003; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003; Theoharis & Brooks, 2012). Culturally relevant
leadership positively influences student engagement through an emphasis on high
expectations and development of organizational policies and structures that empower
students and families, particularly those from diverse backgrounds (Banks, 1996; Skrla,
Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly, 2004 ; Johnson, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Riehl, 2000;
Scheurich & Skrla, 2003). Leadership is practiced with an ethic of care (Noddings, 2003;
Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016) and culturally relevant leaders develop in their faculty and
students a critical consciousness that identifies and challenges inequities inherent in
society (Friere, 2014; Horsford, 2010; McLaren, 1997). Yet, some educators do not
practice culturally relevant leadership, and instead perpetuate a status quo of margin-
alization and discrimination toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds
(Brooks & Normore, 2010; Fraise & Brooks, 2015; Zembylas & Iasonos, 2016). As a
consequence, some students have an equitable opportunity for a quality education,
while others do not. School leaders who are not culturally responsive make intentional
and unintentional decisions that disadvantage certain students—which can have pro-
found and negative implications for students marginalized by the dominant culture
(Bogotch & Schields, 2014; Larson & Murtadha, 2002). In contexts of social unrest or
violent conflict, this may aggravate longstanding social divisions, deepen existing social
divides and increase covert and overt aggression (Brooks, 2015; Brooks & Brooks, 2013;
Mundy & Dryden-Peterson, 2011).
Ethno-religious conflicts threaten social stability, exacerbate extant divisions between
different groups, and advantage or disadvantage groups’ ability to participate in social,
economic, political and cultural aspects of society (Kadayifci-Orellana, 2009). This
affects the provision of education in fractious contexts, as certain groups are educa-
tionally privileged over others (Brooks, 2015). Therefore, it is urgent that educational
research examines school leadership in contexts of conflict in order to understand how
school principals manage socio-religious complexities, whilst seeking to improve teach-
ing and learning.
This study is unique in that it contributes to inquiry exploring school leadership in
non-western cultural contexts (Cheng, 1995; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Murphy &
Hallinger, 1992) and in regions experiencing social unrest due to ethno-religious
difference (Brooks & Sungtong, 2016). We chose Northern Mindanao for this inquiry
because it has a long history of ethno-religious conflict between Christians and Muslims
(Sterkens, Camacho, & Scheepers, 2016), with the vast majority of principals identifying
themselves as part of the dominant Christian majority. The purpose of this research was
to better understand how and in what ways Christian government school principals
lead schools that were culturally relevant and hospitable to all students despite the
challenging context.
Horsford, Grosland, and Gunn (2011) Framework for Culturally Relevant Leadership
guided the study. Accordingly, we conceived culturally relevant leadership as being
shaped by four dimensions: political context, pedagogical approach, personal journey
and professional duty. Each of these four dimensions were relevant in Philippine
schools, as principals work in community contexts that are highly networked through
political and kinship relationships (Sutherland & Brooks, 2014). Therefore, this frame-
work’s conceptual emphasis encouraged deep exploration of issues Filipino school
principals faced on a day-to-day basis and offered the opportunity to view theory as
it relates to practice and practice as it informs theory (Beachum, 2011; Gay, 1994;
Johnson, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Forty-two government school principals parti-
cipated in this qualitative case study, in which we sought to explore the following
research question: How and in what ways do school principals in Northern Mindanao
understand and practice culturally relevant leadership?
This article begins with a brief overview of the historical, social and educational
context of Northern Mindanao. Subsequently, we discuss Horsford et al.’s (2011)
Framework for Culturally Relevant Leadership and explain the methods we used for
this inquiry. This is followed by a report of key findings related to the conceptual
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 3
framework. The article concludes with a discussion that considers the way school
leaders in Northern Mindanao understand and practice culturally relevant leadership,
untangle the complexities of leading ethno-religiously diverse schools in a context of
social unrest and consider the applicability of Horsford et al.’s (2011) Framework for
Culturally Relevant Leadership for further inquiry into leadership practice in contexts
of ethno-religious conflict.
2015). Additionally, schools have been used for military bases and to recruit child
soldiers (Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2016). Teachers have been
kidnapped, harassed and killed (Espina-Varona, 2015). The Philippine Department of
Education (DepEd) manages and regulates all aspects of education; however, its sys-
temic corruption permeates the entirety of the national department with unethical
practices, including but not limited to: bribery, extortion, influence peddling, nepotism,
embezzlement and fraud (Reyes, 2010). There is little accountability or oversight and
distorted incentives and disincentives based on power relations hamper the functioning
of the bureaucracy (Chua, 1999). As a result, there are large deficits in policy imple-
mentation and schools lack classroom space, textbooks, desks and learning equipment
such as libraries, computers and science laboratories. The majority of schools are run in
two or three shifts, with class sizes averaging 43 students (Pastrana, 2014). These
bureaucratic weaknesses are compounded by a local context of political and socio-
religious tensions, resulting in continuing uneasiness and mistrust (Thomson-Reuters
Foundation News, 2014).
Prospective school principals receive little formal training from DepEd (Brooks &
Sutherland, 2014). Teachers must pass a National Qualifying Examination for School
Heads, a four-hour examination consisting of 200 multiple choice questions to be
authorized for Principal I positions (DepEd, 2016). Those who pass the examination
attend a basic training course to obtain a certificate of eligibility (DepEd, 2011). Once
they obtain their certificate, principals are assigned to schools. The vast majority of
principals in Northern Mindanao identify as Catholic (75%) and Evangelical Christian
(5%), reflective of the existing hegemonic social structures. Yet, what role do school
principals play in mitigating ethno-religious conflict? There is research that explores
how and in what ways school principals are culturally relevant leaders (Khalifa,
Gooden, & Davis, 2016) and able to positively influence school culture, allowing for
spaces of cultural cohesion where all cultures are considered in both formal and
informal curricula (Fraise & Brooks, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 1992); however, there is
no research that we could find that explores culturally relevant leadership in a context
of social unrest or violent conflict. Accordingly, Northern Mindanao provides a unique
context in which to explore culturally relevant school leadership and the influence this
may have on educating culturally diverse students in an unstable region.
identities, but also builds self-confidence and encourages students to make connections
between what they are learning in school and the larger world. Culturally relevant
pedagogy’s interweaving of cultural referents throughout the curricula allows students
to examine dominant culture norms alongside their own culture, making school
relevant to them while also building critical skills for life-long learning (Gay, 2002).
When the cultural diversity of students is meaningfully considered and embraced, the
success of educating all students is greatly improved (Lindsey, Robins, & Terrell, 2003).
In contexts of conflict, culturally relevant pedagogy can be difficult to implement.
Government entities may require curricula that disenfranchise certain cultural, religious
or ethnic groups. Textbooks may exclude the history, stories, narratives or perspectives
of certain groups and teachers may avoid teaching topics or lessons out of fear of
reprisals (Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2014). Additionally, the
language used for classroom instruction can be a disputed issue and an additional cause
for political, ethno-
religious or sectarian violence (King, 2011). Principals hold the most visible position in
schools and they have a large impact on instruction and student learning (Branch,
Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2013) and the implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy
must have their full support as they are responsible for the academic progress of their
students (Khalifa et al., 2016). In areas experiencing social unrest, supporting an
inclusive curriculum responsive to marginalized students can be a risky endeavor
(Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2014).
visitors, especially a visitor from the U.S., and my presence was enthusiastically
acknowledged. Although the pictures may compromise confidentiality, photography
was encouraged and I did not want to offend Filipino cultural norms. After the visits, I
wrote observation memos and debriefed with my Filipino colleagues (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). These observations were helpful because it allowed me to triangulate the inter-
view data with field notes (Denzin, 1970/2009) and build rapport with the principals
and teachers (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2009).
I had little control over the location of the interviews, which often occurred in loud
school settings or in quiet, private principal offices. Each interview lasted between 60
and 90 min and was conducted in English. The interview sample included 42 principals,
all of whom were born and raised in Northern Mindanao and worked as a school
principal for 2 to 12 years. I removed all information that could potentially identify the
respondents in the reporting of the findings (Schnabel, 2005).
At the beginning of each interview, I discussed informed consent, the purpose of the
study, confidentiality, and their rights as participants (Creswell, 2013; Miller, Birch,
Mauthner, & Jessop, 2012). Given the varied locations of the interviews, the truthfulness
of principal responses could be questioned. However, I observed that in open settings,
principals freely spoke of challenges and issues just as they did when in more private
locations. Initially, principals did not respond to questions concerning the topics of
multiculturalism or social justice, as they did not understand the terminology. I revised
my interview protocol to arrive at the same topics through language they were more
familiar with. I began the interviews by asking participants to talk about their school,
which focused on location, demographics, school-wide goals, curricula and instruction.
This was followed by questions structured around the theoretical framework, which
centered on the following issues: (a) their perceived safety and the political context; (b)
their pedagogical approach and influence on curricula and instruction; (c) their perso-
nal journeys, which included questions concerning personal background, religious
beliefs, life experiences; and, (d) their professional duties, which included school
governance, budgeting, decision-making, resource allocation, and community involve-
ment. This overview fails to relate the complexities of these topics; however, in the
context of this qualitative study, inquiring about these issues provided insight into the
leadership of Filipino school principals in Northern Mindanao.
I was restricted by my etic positionality as an American Caucasian middle-aged
female; however, my Filipino colleagues and I often discussed issues from insider and
outsider perspectives (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). I was able to build rapport with the
participants by introducing myself as a prior teacher and married mother with children,
the length of time I was staying in Cagayan de Oro, and discussing my teaching
position at the local university. I worked to maintain rapport during the interview
through eye contact and open body language (Dickson-Swift et al., 2009). At the end of
every interview, I thanked the participant and asked if they would be interested in
continuing with the study, and they all agreed.
Data analysis used a priori coding procedures grounded in Horsford et al.’s (2011)
Culturally Relevant Leadership Framework discussed above. Within each of these
dimensions, I initially sorted the data using an inductive and iterative process to
thematically code the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This helped me to distinguish
descriptive themes and subthemes. I next sought to identify patterns across the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 9
Findings
The presentation of findings is organized around Horsford et al.’s (2011) Culturally
Relevant Leadership Framework, which conceived the practice of culturally relevant
leadership as influenced by four dimensions: political context, pedagogical approach,
personal journey and professional duty. The findings relate insights into how and in
what ways principals were culturally ir(relevant) leaders.
The same principal explained that he approached his work through ‘SPG.’ When I
asked him to explain the acronym, he said,
SPG means ‘school, parent, government.’ To find solutions to problems I have to tap
each of these sectors. For example, the covered court is sponsored by our congressman
and the new four-story building is sponsored by the secretary of education. I also asked
the local mining company for materials, not money. They gave us 3,000 hollow blocks,
1,500 sacks of cement, and then I used my money to pay the laborers to repair the
fence.
School principals who tapped into their networks were for the most part successful in
acquiring needed resources DepEd did not supply.
10 M. C. BROOKS AND J. S. BROOKS
While doing fieldwork at a rural school I noticed a man building tables and inquired
about his project. He explained that he is a father of two children at the school and also
the Parent Teacher Association’s (PTA) president. He was building tables for a com-
puter work room. It was a small room that accommodated up to eight computers,
which were expected to be delivered during the school year. During the interview with
the principal, he confirmed that the only work that is completed in the school is
through parent volunteers. School principals had discretion in the day-to-day operation
of their schools, identifying what problems to find solutions to, and seeking the right
person to help solve the problem or provide the right resources. School principals who
garnered additional resources had networks to draw from and were politically astute.
Principals without these connections, or were in the wrong political party, had more
difficulty leveraging needed resources.
Another principal of an urban high school further explained the process of securing
political support. He said, ‘If we put through a resolution asking for a building, if
the barangay chairman, principal, PTA president, and parents are the same color,
the congressman will say, “Oh yes, this is my place, I have lots of votes here, okay,
yes” and just like that, we will have support. If we are not their color, they will just
say “no” and that’s the end.’ Another principal explained, ‘Congressmen only
enhance schools where they are assured that they will get votes, they just give
because they can get something back.’ As street level bureaucrats, principals who
had political knowhow without overtly defying the DepEd code of ethics were given
considerable amount of influence and were able to shape the school to their
priorities.
Politically motivated violence added complexity to the political context. Terrorist
groups, among other violent factions, were active in Northern Mindanao. Principals, as
political actors, understood the nuanced ideological and political context. A principal
explained her approach when working in an indigenous area:
If you make them your friends and you tell them that you are with them, they will protect
you. They look at teachers and principals as highly respected people and so even if they
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 11
bring their guns, I am not afraid because I know that they are with me, and that they
respect me.
Another principal discussed her reliance on the community for the safety of the school,
students, and herself. She said, ‘We ask for the support from the barangay. Our
barangay official designates policemen to come to our activities. That’s good to see
their support for us.’ Yet, not all school principals felt this level of security. During an
interview with a principal the conversation turned to the recent death of a colleague.
This colleague was shot in his driveway for investigating financial corruption. He
explained,
Last month my friend was killed. He was investigating parents who were receiving monies
they were not entitled to from the government. He was shot dead. That is why I will not
look into any suspected instances of corruption. I might be next.
School principals worked in highly political contexts and had to learn how to
contend for limited resources. Yet, they were not immune to the complexities and
insecurities of tenuous relationships, which could quickly change under political
pressures. Killings, like the principal discussed, reminded them that they were left
to their own devices.
This lack of pedagogical leadership was also reflected in a subsequent interview and
observation. I met with a primary school principal who was overseeing a double shift
school of over 7000 students. While touring the school, I asked if I could visit the
special education building. The principal replied, ‘I have never been in that building. I
am too scared to go in there.’ Yet, upon my asking, the principal took me to the
building. I visited the special education class and while I talked to one of the teachers,
the principal stood in the back of the class with her arms crossed and did not talk with
either the students or the other teachers. Through this short observation, it was
apparent that the principal was not involved in leading instruction or ensuring learning
was equitable for every student enrolled in her school.
12 M. C. BROOKS AND J. S. BROOKS
She laughed because she said that the students did not know that the stories were made
up by their teachers. She said, ‘there is no harm done.’
School principals did not understand the importance of leading instruction and
developing authentic curricula where students of different cultural backgrounds and
abilities were included in all aspects of learning. Moreover, no principals viewed their
position as responsible for creating and maintaining learning environments that valued
diversity and none that I interviewed were attentive to issues of equity.
Focus on managerialism
Rather than placing an emphasis on pedagogical leadership, principal work focused on
completing required DepEd managerialism, navigating the DepEd bureaucracy and solving
unexpected problems. DepEd did not provide schools resources until budgets were liqui-
dated. Consequently, this placed pressure on school principals to find ways to discharge
previous debts, especially when the debts occurred prior to their appointment at a school. A
principal explained what she considered the most important aspect of her work, ‘Number
one is paperwork. Often times the problems are from the previous principal who has left
and it’s very difficult to solve their budgeting errors.’ The focus on balancing budgets took
much of their time. A principal explained the challenge of paying a water bill:
When I arrived at this school last year, the water bill was high because the former principal
did not pay. I talked to the community to discuss the problem, and they were very
negative. I realized that I had to start looking for other ways to pay the bill – 80,000
pesos. We do not have the money to pay and I later learned that the community was
tapping into school water pipes and running water to their houses. To avoid a quarrel, I
decide to connect another one and disconnect the old pipes. The bill is still not paid.
Other responsibilities likewise consumed principal time. DepEd required principals and
teachers to attend weekly trainings and acquire certificates to document their participa-
tion. These certificates were collected and presented at the end of the year for evaluation
and were essential to the promotion process. The trainings occurred on Saturdays and
principals and teachers were expected to attend—no matter the content. A principal
reflected:
DepEd has the money for trainings, and so they think that they need to have trainings in
order to check the box to say that they trained principals or teachers. If I just relied on
DepEd trainings, I wouldn’t know enough. I actually enrolled some in civic service courses
for my self-improvement.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 13
Reliance on god
Christianity played a large role in the lives of Filipino school principals. The principals I
spoke to said that their work was spiritually directed. A female principal explained:
I have to be a spiritual leader. When I pray, I get guidance. All the decisions that I have to
make for the school, for the students, for the parents should come from a lot of discern-
ment and not because it is just a decision that I have to make.
I tell the teachers that I am their leader, and that I am not always right. I stress that I am
really listening to the Lord. If I am wrong, then I should be held accountable. I pray to God
and if I don’t listen, then maybe trouble will come.
Every principal I interviewed prayed daily and were not shy to discuss how spirituality
informed their work. This religiosity was reflected in Filipino school culture.
Christian hegemony
When visiting schools, it was clear that Christian symbolism was normalized. The type
of iconography displayed reflected the religion of the principal. Catholic school princi-
pals sanctioned the display of crucifixes, religious statuary, candles and rosaries.
Principals who were Christian allowed the display of Bible versus and signs presenting
religious teachings. Yet, Christianity was an accepted part of school culture. For
example, a male secondary school principal was also an evangelical pastor at a local
church. He did not separate these roles and talked with me about his approach to
working with students. He explained, ‘I help students who are experiencing emotional
and psychological problems by sharing God’s word with them. I tell them that prayer
can move mountains and no matter how big the problem, God is always there to help.’
This principal also used his position to publically preach God’s message. He explained,
14 M. C. BROOKS AND J. S. BROOKS
Every Monday I read the Gospel during the flag ceremony. I teach them about God’s word.
I tell them to pray. I release blessings for the teachers and for the students. They are
hungry for God’s word. Parents want me to do this.
This principal’s school enrolled 3500 students, most of whom were not evangelical
Christians, and some of whom were Muslim, as several girls wore hijabs. This principal
did not show concern for the diversity of beliefs amongst his students or teachers.
When I asked school principals about their Muslim students, every principal
responded that they respected their religion and that they were welcome in the school.
One principal discussed Muslim students in regards to their school-wide monthly
Catholic mass:
I think there are only ten Muslim students enrolled. We do not force them to attend the
school’s monthly mass. Catholics will be there because Catholics are the majority. For
those who are not Catholic, they will be taken to a classroom. We do this so there will be
no disturbances.
School principals did not force attendance at any religious gathering, stating that
students had freedom to choose. Yet, the Christian hegemony present in schools was
customary. Principals either had an inability to or an unwillingness to critically reflect
on how and in what ways Christianity influenced school culture. As a consequence,
religiously diverse students were not supported by a school environment that valued
their beliefs. This lack of perception concerning entrenched Christian hegemony mir-
rored larger social divisions. Several principals called their Muslim students ‘lazy.’
Principals interviewed acknowledged that they had Muslim students in their schools,
but that their needs were met and that all was fine. Thus, school principals in Northern
Mindanao sustained existing social divisions without question.
Yet, reassignment was not always easy for principals. In many cases, principals were
assigned to particular schools to solve the problems left by the outgoing principal. A
female teacher explained:
When I arrived at my new school, I learned of a conflict existing between parents, the
former principal, and a teacher. This conflict concerned budget liquidation. The super-
intendent ordered me to be here to solve that problem. Yet, I quickly learned of another
problem – many of the students had tuberculosis because of the landfill.
Often there would be more than one problem to solve at a new school. How satisfied
DepEd was with principal solutions often determined their next school placement. A
young principal explained his hesitancy to be rapidly promoted through the bureau-
cratic system:
I’m not fit to handle this school because I am only Principal I. The school division
superintendent assigned me here during her first weeks on the job. I declined because I
told her that I only had minimal experience. My first school had only 53 teachers. She
would not accept my refusal. Now I am a principal overseeing 205 teachers and almost
8,000 pupils.
Discussion
School principals are vital to ensuring that all students, no matter their differences, have
equitable opportunities for academic and social success (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003;
Theoharis & Brooks, 2012). Principals who seek to be culturally relevant develop and
sustain school cultures that not only emphasize high expectations for every student in
the school, but also develop organizational policies and structures that empower every
16 M. C. BROOKS AND J. S. BROOKS
student and family (Banks, 1996; Johnson, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Horsford et al.
(2011) developed a framework that allowed for exploration of culturally relevant
leadership in a context of ethno-religious diversity and social unrest because of its
grounding in dimensions of principal work. The findings of our study suggested three
areas for discussion. First, school principals in Northern Mindanao generally lacked a
critical consciousness that identified and challenged existing inequities in their schools
and in the larger society. Second, principals were deficient in their pedagogical knowl-
edge, which impeded instructional leadership and disenfranchised students from mar-
ginalized groups. Third, principals were unreflective of their personal biases and
imposed their religious beliefs on their students, without concern for those of differing
faiths. This culturally irrelevant leadership reinforced hegemonic social structures and
buttressed longstanding frictious ethno-religious social divisions.
First, school principals in Northern Mindanao lacked the ability or willingness to
identify and challenge existing inequities. To challenge the status quo was personally
and professionally risky. Working in a hierarchical and corrupt organization, with
insufficient and inequitably distributed resources, principals were on their own to
look for solutions to solve problems. Their success was reliant on their ability to
work as street-level bureaucrats—to be politically savvy and tap into established net-
works. This was especially difficult if principals were placed in communities that were
not affiliated with their political allegiances or networks. Communities of different
political loyalties were often not willing to offer support, as it was not viewed as
politically worthwhile or advantageous. As street-level bureaucrats, principals were
more effective if they worked within the status quo and navigated its existing social
structures. Challenging the status quo threatened their professional position (Friere,
2014; McLaren, 1997; Theorharis, 2009). Consequently, policy implementation and
decision making was completed on ad hoc bases, resulting in wide-ranging and incon-
sistent practices.
Additionally, creating organizational structures and processes that could empower
students and faculty was not feasible. Principals sanctioned existing hegemonic social
structures and the marginalization of students with different ethno-religious back-
grounds in the school because it was the social norm. No other religious décor was
evident other than Catholic or Christian ornamentation. Moreover, the context of social
instability and political networks made it hazardous for school principals to challenge
existing social structures, norms and mores. With the threat of politically motivated
violence, principals needed to build trust with communities as a way to safeguard
themselves and the school—and not be viewed as controversial or unusual (Brooks,
2012). Thus, school principals in Northern Mindanao were culturally irrelevant leaders,
not solely due to lack of education about social justice and cultural relevancy, but
because highlighting difference and working outside the accepted customs was hazar-
dous—in terms of personal danger and political recklessness. Therefore, developing a
critical consciousness and empowering students and teachers to question the status quo
was contradictory to and insupportable of the work of the principalship.
Second, school principals in Northern Mindanao lacked an equity orientation and
did not practice culturally relevant leadership. They did not receive formal training on
culturally relevant instruction and their day-to-day work was primarily focused on
managerialism, budget liquidation and problem-solving. Principals spoke of providing
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 17
supportive observations of teachers, but they did not provide constructive feedback for
teacher development. They participated in trainings in order to receive certificates for
promotion, and encouraged their teachers to do likewise; however, they did not see
themselves in the role of instructional leader. This deficiency limited their ability to
support teachers in adapting existing curricula that valued their students’ life experi-
ences and diversity of cultures (Brooks & Miles, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Moreover, their actions were often counter to culturally relevant instruction, as evi-
denced in the approval of fabricated indigenous cultural stories. School principals did
not concern themselves with the explicit or implicit messages this sent to students.
Preference for dominant cultural knowledge along with a one-size-fits-all curricula were
accepted practice.
The structure of schooling also limited principals’ mindfulness concerning issues of
diversity. Schools were overcrowded, with many having two shifts of students a day
with thousands of students enrolled in one school. This hampered the development of
principal-student relationships and building rapport with families. Additionally, with
only a maximum of a three-year placement in a school, principals did not have the time
or resources to implement wide-scale reforms targeted at lessening social divisions and
inequity. As a consequence, principals did not change school structures, cultural norms
or curricula (Gay, 2002) because doing so was an unnecessarily risky endeavor (Global
Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2014). Accordingly, school principals did
not provide a space for cultural cohesion or for the development of cross-cultural
understanding, thereby limiting minoritized student engagement (Terrell & Lindsey,
2009).
Third, principals were unreflective of their personal biases by imposing their reli-
gious beliefs on their students and staff. They lacked a critical self-awareness (Khalifa
et al., 2016) that would have recognized that the privileging of one religion over others
was not serving the needs of all students. Providing classroom space for non-Catholic
students to sit during the celebration of mass was a common practice. School principals
regarded separate accommodation as equal accommodation. However, these practices
set religiously diverse students apart from activities in the school and did not affirm
students’ cultural identities. Rather, the enforced separations minoritized religiously
diverse students and created dichotomous school climates (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).
Advocating for religiously diverse students was unheard of and viewed as unnecessary.
In contexts of conflict, revealing privilege, such as Christian privilege and entitlement,
could lead to resentment and hostility. Therefore, it was in principals’ interest to not
reflect and mitigate their personal biases or change religious practices in schools. Doing
so would reveal entrenched discrimination and injustice. Thus, ignoring the need to
teach multicultural awareness and being open to learning about ‘the other’ was counter
to accepted norms. Consequently, schooling in Northern Mindanao taught students
that separation and marginalization of diverse students was appropriate and needed—
counter to culturally relevant leadership and pedagogy.
It is important for us to state that while this discussion seems to frame issues in
a negative light, we note that the principal preparation and training schemes in the
Philippines generally conceived the role of school principal in a functionalist and
difference-blind paradigm (Larson & Murtadha, 2002). Their main functions are
those of administration and management of the school, and issues that might
18 M. C. BROOKS AND J. S. BROOKS
foster a greater understanding of cultural relevance are not at the heart of the
scope of their work. In many ways, interviewing principals in the Philippines was
an echo of the banking approach to education that inspired Friere (2014) to write
Pedagogy of the Oppressed—an education where fostering critical consciousness in
students, educators and school leaders was not seen as a purpose of education.
Instead, education is largely seen as the transmission of content from teacher to
student; in terms of leadership, it is the transmission of policy and procedure from
principal to teacher. It will be fascinating to see how recent education reforms,
such as adding two years to secondary education and emerging political tensions
in the era of Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency, might move the Philippines forward,
backward or keep it in a holding pattern with respect to the ways that educators
conduct their work and the forms of education they will deliver to students.
Conclusion
School principals have an important role to play in shaping and creating positive school
cultures that are spaces for cultural cohesion, where students—no matter their differ-
ence—can be academically and socially successful. Principals who are culturally relevant
leaders emphasize high expectations and create processes and policies that engage
students emotionally, socially and politically. They seek to develop in their students a
critical consciousness that identifies and challenges inequities inherent in the larger
society. Yet, the findings from this study suggest that school principals in Northern
Mindanao were culturally irrelevant leaders. They perpetuated the status quo of mar-
ginalization toward students from diverse backgrounds. As a result, some students
received an opportunity for a quality education while others did not. In Northern
Mindanao, it was disadvantageous for principals to counter prevailing social and
organizational norms. Therefore, school principals did not promote intercultural
understanding nor bring to light social injustices, as doing so could threaten their
professional standing.
Although this study is limited in its scale and questions remain as to the
applicability of applying culturally relevant leadership frameworks to non-
Western contexts, this case sheds light on how culturally irrelevant school princi-
pals sustain and reinforce social division and hegemonic social structures. The
research findings make explicit the importance of meaningful principal preparation
and professional development programs that interweave culturally relevant leader-
ship skills, reflective practice and inter-cultural understanding in ways that can be
locally applied. Shifting the ways principals see their roles in the organization, and
allowing them to change school culture, can help create more inclusive environ-
ments for all students. Additionally, this study suggests that reducing principal
transfer is essential in allowing principal’s time needed to establish advantageous
working relationships with teachers and the larger communities their schools
serve. Given time, school principals are uniquely positioned to create inclusive
schooling environments that welcome and support all students and their families.
This is important in contexts of social unrest, where cross-cultural trust can be
difficult to build and sustain (Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack,
2014).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 19
More broadly, this study adds to the two decades of discourse on culturally relevant
leadership and instruction (Khalifa et al., 2016) and suggests the need for the develop-
ment of indigenized frameworks that are applicable to principal practice in non-
Western and postcolonial contexts (Bryant, 1998; Khalifa, Bashir-Ali, Abdi, & Arnold,
2014). Nonetheless, the findings that emerged from applying Horsford et al.’s (2011)
Culturally Relevant Leadership Framework to the Filipino context, emphasizes that
school principals—no matter their geographic location—have an obligation to be
reflective leaders and to provide students an education that is culturally relevant to
their lives. Without accepting this obligation, minoritized students will continue to be
disregarded, hegemonic social structures maintained, and educational futures lost. In
contexts of conflict, this indifference can have ominous consequences.
Notes
1. The lead author of this article collected all data for the study. Accordingly, she discusses
the methodology and presents the data from a first person perspective.
2. The term ‘Moro’ was used by the Spanish for Muslim, drawing from the term ‘Moors.’
3. A proposed new autonomous political region with expanded authority.
4. This qualitative case study is part of a larger study supported by the U.S. Fulbright Scholar
Program that took place over five months in Northern Mindanao. Melanie Brooks
collected and analyzed the data. Jeff Brooks contributed to interpretation of the data and
to the original conceptualization of the study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Alemán, E. (2009). Latcrit educational leadership and advocacy: Struggling over whiteness as
property in Texas school finance. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(2), 183–201.
Apple, M. W. (2012). Education and power. New York, NY: Routledge.
Auerbach, S. (Ed.). (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships:
Research perspectives for transforming practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge and action:
Historical and contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Beachum, F. (2011). Culturally relevant leadership for complex 21st century school contexts. In
F. W. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory,
research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. (2013). The Philippines: Religious conflict
resolution on Mindanao. Retrieved from http://repository.berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/
130801BCPhilippinesReligiousConflictResolutionMindanao.pdf
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Bogotch, I., & Schields, C. M. (2014). Introduction: Do promises of social justice trump para-
digms of educational leadership. In I. Bogotch & C. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of
educational leadership and social (in)justice (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2007). The manager as politician. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2013). School leaders matter: Measuring the
impact of effective principals. Education Next, 13(1), 1–8.
20 M. C. BROOKS AND J. S. BROOKS
Brooks, J. S. (2012). Black school white school: Racism and educational (mis)leadersip. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Brooks, J. S., & Jean-Marie, G. (2007). Black leadership, white leadership: Race and race relations
in an urban high school. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 756–768.
Brooks, J. S., & Miles, M. (2010). Educational leadership and the shaping of school culture:
Classic concepts and cutting edge possibilities. In S. D. Horsford (Ed.), New perspectives in
educational leadership: Exploring social, political, and community contexts and meaning.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2010). Educational leadership and globalization: Literacy for a
global perspective. Educational Policy, 24(1), 52–82.
Brooks, J. S., & Sutherland, I. E. (2014). Educational leadership in the Philippines: Principals’
perspectives on problems and possibilities for change. Planning and Changing, 45(3/4),
339–355.
Brooks, M. C. (2015). School principals in Southern Thailand: Exploring trust with community
leaders during conflict. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(2),
232–252.
Brooks, M. C., & Brooks, J. S. (2013). What can school leaders do about violence in schools?
Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 10(2), 115–118.
Brooks, M. C., & Sungtong, E. (2016). “We still have bombings”: School principals and insurgent
violence in Southern Thailand. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(5),
505–533.
Bryant, M. T. (1998). Cross-cultural understandings of leadership themes form Native American
interviews. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 26(1), 7–20.
Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Teaching public problems
in a shared-power world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. (2004). International religious freedom report
2004. U.S. Department of State Diplomacy in Action. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/
drl/rls/irf/2004/35425.htm#
Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2018). José Rizal: Leadership lessons from the national hero of
the Philippines. In J.S. Brooks & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Leading Against the Grain: Lessons for
Creating Just and Equitable Schools (pp. 64-71). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Chua, Y. T. (1999). Robbed: An investigation of corruption in Philippine education. Quezon City,
PH: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Collier, K. (2006). TERRORISM: Evolving regional alliances and state failure in Mindanao.
Southeast Asian Affairs. 26–38. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27913301
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2009, December 15). Principals as political actors: Facing reality. [Web log comment].
Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/principals-as-political-actors-
facing-reality/
Cheng, K. M. (1995). The neglected dimension: Cultural comparison in educational administra-
tion. In K.C. Wong & K.M. Cheng (Eds.), Educational leadership and change: An interna-
tional perspective (pp. 87-102). Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Davies, L. (2011). Can education interrupt fragility? Toward the resilient citizen and the
adaptable state. In K. Mundy & S. Dryden-Peterson (Eds.), Educating children in conflict
zones. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1970/2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
Piscataway, NY: Transaction.
DepEd. (2011). DO 97, s.2011 – Revised guidelines on the allocation and reclassification of
school head positions. Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-97-s-2011
DepEd. (2016). Principal’s Test. Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/principals-test
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2009). Researching sensitive
topics: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research, 9(1), 61–79.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 21
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2000). Developing comparative and international educational
leadership and management: A cross-cultural model. School Leadership & Management, 20
(2), 143–160.
Espina-Varona, I. (2015, September 5). They’re killing teachers and children, Mr. President. ABS-
CBN News. Retrieved from http://news.abs-cbn.com/blogs/opinions/09/04/15/theyre-killing-
teachers-and-children-mr-president
Ferrer, M. C. (2011). To share of divide power? Minorities in autonomous regions, the case of the
autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(12), 2097–2115.
Fraise, N. J., & Brooks, J. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for
school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 6–21.
Friere, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. New York: Bloomsbury.
Fullan, M. (Ed). (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Gay, G. (1994). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse stu-
dents: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6),
613–629.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education-
Washington DC, 53(2), 106–116.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181–187.
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack. (2014). Education under attack 2014. Retrieved
from http://protectingeducation.org/sites/default/files/documents/eua_2014_full_0.pdf
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack. (2016). Country profiles: The Philippines.
Retrieved from http://www.protectingeducation.org/country-profile/philippines
Global Education Monitoring Report. (2012). Conflicts are one of the biggest barriers to education
for all. World Education Blog. Retrieved from https://efareport.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/
conflicts-are-one-of-the-biggest-barriers-to-education-for-all/
Gorski, P. C., & Zenkov, K. (Eds.). (2014). The big lies of school reform: Finding better solutions
for the future of public education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gutierrez, E. (2012). From Ilaga to Abu Sayyaf: New entrepreneurs in violence and their impact
on local politics in Mindanao. Philippine Political Science Journal, 24(47), 145–178.
Horsford, S. D. (2010). New perspectives in educational leadership: Exploring social, political, and
community contexts and meaning. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Horsford, S. D., Grosland, T., & Gunn, K. M. (2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional:
Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21(4),
582–606.
Human Rights Watch. (2015). Philippines: Paramilitaries attack tribal villages, schools. Retrieved
from https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/23/philippines-paramilitaries-attack-tribal-villages-
schools
Jamal, T. (2016). Philippines-Mindanao (1971- first combat deaths). Ploughshares: Research and
Action for Peace. Retrieved from http://ploughshares.ca/pl_armedconflict/philippines-
mindanao-1971-first-combat-deaths/
Johnson, L. (2006). “Making her Community a better place to live”: Culturally responsive urban
school leadership in historical context. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 19–36.
Kadayifci-Orellana, S. A. (2009). Ethno-religious conflicts: Exploring the role of religion in
conflict resolution. In J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk, & I. W. Zartman (Eds), The SAGE
Handbook of Conflict Resolution (pp. 264–284). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Khalifa, M. A., Bashir-Ali, K., Abdi, N., & Arnold, N. W. (2014). From post-colonial to neoliberal
schooling in Somalia: The need for culturally relevant school leadership among Somaliland
principals. Planning and Changing, 45(3/4), 235–260.
22 M. C. BROOKS AND J. S. BROOKS
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research (Published Online before Print),
1–40. doi:10.3102/0034654316630383
King, E. (2011). The multiple relationships between education and conflict: Reflections of
Rwandan teachers and students. In K. Mundy & S. Dryden-Peterson (Eds.), Educating children
in conflict zones (pp. 137–152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York, NY: Crown.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant
approach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, 31(4), 312–320.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing Co.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2007). Pushing past the achievement gap: An essay on the language of
deficit. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(3), 316–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
40034574
Larson, C. L., & Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 134–161.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindsay, R. B., Roberts, L. M., & CampbellJones, F. (2004). The culturally proficient school: An
implementation guide for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lindsey, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrell, R. D. (2003). Cultural proficiency: A manual for school
leaders (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services, 30th
anniversary special edition. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, T., Birch, M., Mauthner, M., & Jessop, J. (Eds.). (2012). Ethics in qualitative research. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Milligan, J. A. (2005). Islamic identity, postcoloniality, and educational policy. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Montiel, C. J., Rodil, R. B., & De Guzman, J. M. (2012). The Moro struggle and the challenge to
peace building in Mindanao, Southern Philippines. In D. Landis & R. D. Albert (Eds.),
Handbook of ethnic conflict: International perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.
Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school
effectiveness. Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/61/2635399.pdf
Mundy, S., & Dryden-Peterson, K. (2011). Educating children in conflict zones: Research, policy,
and practice for systemic change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of
Educational Administration, 30(3), 77–78.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Normore, A. H., Brooks, J. S., & Silvia, S. (2016). Global core leadership competencies: A
response to ‘institutional culture’ and (in)-competence in higher education. In A. H.
Normore & J. S. Brooks (Eds.), The dark side of leadership: Identifying and overcoming
unethical practice in organizations (pp. 155–176). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
O’Malley, B. (2010). Education under attack, 2010: A global study on targeted political and
military violence against education, staff, students, teachers, union and government officials,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 23
Vavrus, F., & Cole, K. (2002). “I didn’t do nothin”: The discursive construction of school
suspension. The Urban Review, 32(2), 87–111.
Vellema, S., & Lara, F. (2011). The agrarian roots of contemporary violent conflict in Mindanao,
Southern Philippines. Journal of Agrarian Change, 11(3), 298–320.
Xu, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2012). Cultural reproduction, cultural mobility, cultural
resources, or trivial effect? A comparative approach to cultural capital and educational
performance. Comparative Education Review, 56(1), 98–124.
Young, B. L., Madsen, J., & Young, M. A. (2010). Implementing diversity plans: Principals’
perception of their ability to address diversity in their schools. NASSP Bulletin, 94(2), 135–157.
Zembylas, M., & Iasonos, S. (2016). The entanglement of leadership styles and social justice
leadership: A case study from Cyprus. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(3), 297–322.